Sutureless Perceval Aortic Valve Versus Conventional Stented Bioprostheses: Meta-Analysis of Postoperative and Midterm Results in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement

被引:77
作者
Meco, Massimo [1 ]
Montisci, Andrea [1 ]
Miceli, Antonio [1 ]
Panisi, Paolo [3 ]
Donatelli, Francesco [1 ,2 ]
Cirri, Silvia [1 ]
Ferrarini, Matteo [1 ]
Lio, Antonio [1 ]
Glauber, Mattia [1 ]
机构
[1] Grp Osped San Donato, Ist Clin St Ambrogio, Cardiothorac Dept, Via Faravelli 16, I-20149 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Milan, Chair Cardiac Surg, Milan, Italy
[3] Humanitas Gavazzeni Hosp, Cardiac Ctr, Bergamo, Italy
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION | 2018年 / 7卷 / 04期
关键词
aortic stenosis; prosthetic heart valve; Sutureless bioprothesis; Perceval valve; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; RENAL-FAILURE; RISK-FACTORS; SURGERY; STERNOTOMY; MINITHORACOTOMY; IMPLANTATION; DURATION; DIALYSIS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1161/JAHA.117.006091
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundAortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and ResultsA total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.161.2 versus 2.13 +/- 2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42 +/- 1.73 versus 22.8 +/- 1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow-up (10.98 +/- 5.7 versus 13.06 +/- 6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality. ConclusionsThe Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high-risk patients.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Heart valve surgery in octogenarians: operative and long-term results
    Aoyagi, Shigeaki
    Fukunaga, Shuji
    Arinaga, Koichi
    Tomoeda, Hiroshi
    Akasu, Koji
    Ueda, Tomohiro
    [J]. HEART AND VESSELS, 2010, 25 (06) : 522 - 528
  • [2] Stentless bioprostheses improve postoperative coronary flow more than stented prostheses after valve replacement for aortic stenosis
    Bakhtiary, F
    Schiemann, M
    Dzemali, O
    Wittlinger, T
    Doss, M
    Ackermann, H
    Moritz, A
    Kleine, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2006, 131 (04) : 883 - 888
  • [3] The coagulopathy of cardiopulmonary bypass
    Besser, Martin W.
    Klein, Andrew A.
    [J]. CRITICAL REVIEWS IN CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCES, 2010, 47 (5-6) : 197 - 212
  • [4] Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Brown, Morgan L.
    McKellar, Stephen H.
    Sundt, Thoralf M.
    Schaff, Hartzell V.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2009, 137 (03) : 670 - U215
  • [5] Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: What is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis
    D'Onofrio, Augusto
    Rizzoli, Giulio
    Messina, Antonio
    Alfieri, Ottavio
    Lorusso, Roberto
    Salizzoni, Stefano
    Glauber, Mattia
    Di Bartolomeo, Roberto
    Besola, Laura
    Rinaldi, Mauro
    Troise, Giovanni
    Gerosa, Gino
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2013, 146 (05) : 1065 - 1071
  • [6] Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis
    Dalen, Magnus
    Biancari, Fausto
    Rubino, Antonino S.
    Santarpino, Giuseppe
    Glaser, Natalie
    De Praetere, Herbert
    Kasama, Keiichiro
    Juvonen, Tatu
    Deste, Wanda
    Pollari, Francesco
    Meuris, Bart
    Fischlein, Theodor
    Mignosa, Carmelo
    Gatti, Giuseppe
    Pappalardo, Aniello
    Svenarud, Peter
    Sartipy, Ulrik
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2016, 49 (01) : 220 - 227
  • [7] Permanent pacemaker implantation after isolated aortic valve replacement: Incidence, indications, and predictors
    Dawkins, Sam
    Hobson, Alex R.
    Kalra, Paul R.
    Tang, Augustine T. M.
    Monro, James L.
    Dawkins, Keith D.
    [J]. ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2008, 85 (01) : 108 - 112
  • [8] Despotis GJ, 1999, J CARDIOTHOR VASC AN, V13, P18
  • [9] Systemic inflammation present in patients undergoing CABG without extracorporeal circulation
    Fransen, E
    Maessen, J
    Dentener, M
    Senden, N
    Geskes, G
    Buurman, W
    [J]. CHEST, 1998, 113 (05) : 1290 - 1295
  • [10] PROGNOSIS AND RISK-FACTORS IN ACUTE, DIALYSIS-REQUIRING RENAL-FAILURE AFTER OPEN-HEART-SURGERY
    FROST, L
    PEDERSEN, RS
    LUND, O
    HANSEN, OK
    HANSEN, HE
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 1991, 25 (03): : 161 - 166